Most (not all) designers just don't have a clue. For an inkjet (we are talking print res of only 360dpi) display print job the other day, the client asked for a an image 3metre x 2metre@ 300"dpi", with the .tif to be sent via EMAIL. That would have been 2.34 GB file. ouch.
It as for a shop fit, high up on a 2-storey wall, with a minimum viewing distance of about 6 metres. Needless to say I ended up sending a much more sensible alternative, direct to the guy printing the job.

Quote "Silly rule? Seems like simple math to me.... yes, its easy to uprez any file to 50mb.. but which file will look better? thats the important thing here and the point of my original post."

That was my point. As a quality control measure, a minimum files size requirement does nothing as anyone can up size anything to any size. In the end, someone with a trained eye has to look at the photo and decide if it's acceptable. File size requirements are just a waste of time and space.

Sorry everyone. It's entirely my fault. I knew I should not have bought the D200 set up. I haven't even got it wet yet (still flooding Fuji S2 s) nor got a housing for a D200. It was tempting fate that I should buy a new camera just before Nikon brought out a new one. I also put my money into stocks the day before Black Wednesday! I'm just that sort of guy.

As to file sizes, if we could dissuade art editors and production men from Photochopping the pictures it would go a long way to getting good quality into print. Why do they do it? Because they can!

I buy my own photographic kit. Diving equipment manufacturers and diving services suppliers get even-handed treatment from me whether they choose to advertise in the publications I write for or not. All the equipment I get on loan is returned as soon as it is finished with.Did you know you can now get Diver Mag as an iPad/Android app?

I would not count out the vertical grip necessarily. Why couldn't the new camera be a D3H? Personally I cannot believe that Nikon is still selling a 4MP body. I think that the H series needs an MP jump much more than the D70 does.

I would not count out the vertical grip necessarily. Why couldn't the new camera be a D3H? Personally I cannot believe that Nikon is still selling a 4MP body. I think that the H series needs an MP jump much more than the D70 does.

The wording on the teaser mentions "affordability" and "enthusiast" which I assume would preclude a new "pro" D3H. I wish it were so though. If my D2H had 10MP I would have little need for another upgrade.

there isn't going to be a D3H because the D2x combines the features of an H and an X. Its 7 megapixel, 8fps high speed crop feature takes care of that end.

the new one will be a D70 successor at the $1k price point.

I disagree. The camera that will be announced in a few days or so will in all likely-hood be the D70 replacement but I think there will be a D3H in the future. From everything I've read Nikon is continuing development of the LBCAST sensor and it's the sensor that sets the D2h apart from other DSLRs I've used. I would really like to see a 10-12MP LBCAST sensor and I'll be the first one in line if Nikon gives us one. I just don't think it's going to be this time.

I quess I'm going against the grain here but Nikon has maintained the H and X designations with both the D1 and D2 versions and there's no reason to think there won't be a D3H as well as a D3X. The H and the X are targeted at different pro market segments. The H at PJ's and sports photo segment. The X at the studio/fashion/nature market.

I agree with Larry that the H might continue for sometime. Especially if the X goes to FF.

While the H gets a hard time from photo-enthusiasts and measurebators (and people like me for whom it is no-use) it is popular with those who work as PJs (photojournalists) and know their market. A local PJ I know has D2H and a D2Hs and is more than happy with their res because he shoots for newspapers. He has a D2X too - for certain jobs - but he is making so much money from his D2H images that he can buy a D2X for fun!

In our photographic world we don't meet that many photographers who do PJ stuff. But there are many out there and while I'd expect Nikon to bumb the D3H to 8MP these people aren't clamering for more megapixels (but would like better high ISO noise to match the Canon 1D Mk2n).

Another way to prove this 50mb minimum rule is stupid: you can take an image from a D100 or D70, save it as a 32-bit TIFF file, and there you have it, a 70mb file that's only 3000x2000 (6mp). Aboslutely no added information, just takes more space :glare:

The logic behind the 50mb requirement, as I understand it, is as a quality control guideline. Think about it from a photo buyers and agents perspective. If you were an agency attempting to get images from photographers and needed a fast way to move a tremendous volume of images through quality control, a strict set of guidelines would be the best way. It might just be a size (file size) requirement, and it is counterintuitive, but frankly setting such a guideline is the best way to regulate quality. If all images are about 50mb 300dpi (just a standard) 16bit, you can open up any image, view it at 100%, and know pretty much immediately whether it is of high enough quality. That is a bar that the industry sets. And frankly, an image might look great at native output, but how will it hold up when you blow it up to xxx size? The buyer needs to know what he or she is getting and won't tolerate images of varying sizes. Remember, it's all about standards. A standard has to be somewhere, whether for editing, or output. 50mb is simply a representation of a quality standard in a method easily translated to both buyers and photographers.

Finally, regarding some of the prior comments, in my experience most agency personell are better versed in digital media than most of the photographers they represent. As a photographer, I appreciate this and what the agent does: sell my images.